Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 142 references

This paper claims that the inflaton potential is not an input to cosmology but an output of the universe's quantum state, emerging from the phase and amplitude of the Wheeler–DeWitt wave function, so that CMB data would constrain the wave f

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 11:25 UTC pith:HFLPTP6K

load-bearing objection The paper's central claim that the inflaton potential emerges from the wave function dissolves once you notice the imaginary part of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation is never enforced; the toy models then fail on their own terms. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2510.04775 v2 pith:HFLPTP6K submitted 2025-10-06 gr-qc astro-ph.CO

The Wave Function of the Universe and Inflation

Gerasimos Kouniatalis This is my paper
classification gr-qc astro-ph.CO MSC 83F0583C45 PACS 98.80.Qc98.80.Cq
keywords wave function of the universeWheeler-DeWitt equationinflationemergent potentialslow-roll parametersCMB observablesStarobinsky modelquantum cosmology
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper tries to establish that the inflaton potential does not need to be put into cosmology by hand. Starting from the Wheeler–DeWitt equation for a flat FRW minisuperspace with a scalar field, it writes the wave function as an amplitude times a phase, separates the two into geometric and field-dependent factors, and derives a closed expression for V(ϕ) in terms of derivatives of those factors. If correct, the same quantum state that describes the universe also selects the inflationary model: slow-roll parameters, spectral tilt, tensor-to-scalar ratio, and non-Gaussianities become functions of phase and amplitude derivatives, so CMB data become constraints on the wave function itself. The paper illustrates the scheme with wave functions that reproduce Higgs-like, Starobinsky-like, and ACT-optimized potentials.

Core claim

The central claim is Eq. (15): V(ϕ) = a⁻⁴[p/a A'_a/A_a + A''_a/A_a − (S'_a)² + a²Λ] + a⁻⁶[(S'_ϕ)² − A''_ϕ/A_ϕ]. The first bracket is the geometric background, including the cosmological constant and quantum corrections from the amplitude; the second is field dynamics, dominated by the phase momentum (S'_ϕ)². In the slow-roll regime the amplitude corrections are negligible, and the slow-roll parameters ϵ and η become ratios built from second and third derivatives of S_ϕ, leading to wave-function-level formulas for n_s and r. The author presents this as showing that inflationary dynamics is encoded in the quantum state rather than imposed through an ad hoc potential.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the polar WKB decomposition Ψ = A e^{iS} with the separable ansatz S = S_a(a) + S_ϕ(ϕ), A = A_a(a)A_ϕ(ϕ). Substitution into the real part of the Wheeler–DeWitt equation gives the emergent-potential formula; the phase supplies classical momenta and the amplitude supplies quantum corrections. The same decomposition converts the imaginary part into a continuity equation that is stated but not used in deriving the toy potentials.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the imaginary part of the Wheeler–DeWitt equation — the continuity equation (13) — can be ignored while the amplitude and phase are chosen freely and the potential is then defined by Eq. (15); if that equation were enforced, the toy wave functions would generally fail to be solutions, and if it is not enforced, choosing Ψ is equivalent to choosing V rather than deriving it.

What would settle it

Evaluate the continuity equation (13) for the Model 1 wave function, Eqs. (31)–(34). Because γ and δ there depend on a, the separated form (7)–(8) is violated, and the left-hand side of (13) will generically be nonzero. If it is not identically vanishing, those wave functions are not solutions of the Wheeler–DeWitt equation, and the derived V is not an emergent potential but a construction imposed by hand.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, choosing a wave function of the universe is choosing an inflationary model; no separate potential input is needed.
  • CMB observables (n_s, r, f_NL, α_s) become functions of derivatives of the phase and amplitude, so precision cosmology can in principle constrain the quantum state.
  • The slow-roll conditions reduce to smoothness conditions on S_ϕ, giving a wave-function-level reason why ϵ and η are small.
  • Different quantum states map to distinct inflationary scenarios — Higgs-like, Starobinsky plateau, ACT-optimized — each with testable predictions.
  • The amplitude A_ϕ, absent from classical treatments, contributes to non-Gaussianities and the background scale, giving a quantum-gravitational handle on deviations from Gaussianity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because Eq. (15) defines V so that the real part of the Wheeler–DeWitt equation holds identically for any chosen S and A, the real content of the proposal lives in the dropped continuity equation; enforcing it would likely eliminate most of the toy wave functions, and the paper does not show which ones survive.
  • A sharper test would be to compute S_ϕ and A_ϕ from a boundary-condition-selected wave function, such as no-boundary or tunneling conditions, and compare the resulting potential to observed constraints; that would turn the rewriting into a prediction.
  • The construction effectively re-parametrizes the standard inflationary reconstruction problem: instead of mapping the curvature power spectrum to V(ϕ), it maps it to derivatives of a phase; the gain is interpretational, and the testable content is unchanged until the wave function is fixed by independent principles.
  • Generalizing beyond the separable ansatz could connect multifield inflation to off-diagonal phase structure in minisuperspace, where amplitude–phase mixing may produce larger non-Gaussianities than the separable case.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper claims that in a flat FRW minisuperspace, the inflationary potential emerges from the wave function of the universe rather than being postulated. Starting from the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (2), the author adopts the polar decomposition Ψ=A e^{iS} and the separable ansatz (7)–(8), solves the real part of the WDW equation for V(φ) to obtain Eq. (15), and then expresses slow-roll parameters and CMB observables (n_s, r, f_NL, α_s) in terms of derivatives of the phase S_φ and amplitude A_φ. Three toy models are presented (Higgs-like, Starobinsky-like, and ACT-optimized) with claimed agreement with current data. The central assertion is that specifying the quantum state fixes the inflationary potential and its predictions.

Significance. If the construction were correct, it would provide a novel route from quantum cosmology to inflationary phenomenology. The paper is clearly structured and the algebra leading to Eq. (15) is essentially correct. However, the central claim is not supported: Eq. (15) still contains a-dependent terms and the consistency condition for a φ-only potential is never checked; the imaginary part of the WDW equation (Eq. 13) is derived but never imposed, so the toy wave functions are not demonstrated to be solutions; and the toy models contain algebraic inconsistencies. These are not presentation issues but load-bearing defects. The paper does provide a useful formal dictionary that could be developed, but as it stands it does not establish the claimed emergence of the potential from the wave function.

major comments (5)
  1. [§III.A, Eqs. (15)–(16)] The right-hand side of Eq. (15) depends on a through the explicit powers a^{-4}, a^{-6} and through S_a(a), A_a(a), A'_a, A''_a. For V(φ) to be a field potential, this expression must be independent of a; the paper neither proves nor states this consistency condition. The approximation (16) retains V0(a), so even in the slow-roll limit the 'potential' is a-dependent. Consequently the slow-roll parameters (20)–(21) and the observational formulas derived from them are not well defined as functions of φ alone. This undermines the identification of the emergent potential.
  2. [§III.A and Eq. (13)] The imaginary part of the WDW equation, Eq. (13), is derived in Section III but never used. A genuine solution of the WDW equation must satisfy both the real and imaginary parts. Since Eq. (15) is simply the real part solved for V after the separable ansatz is inserted, prescribing S_φ and A_φ and defining V via (15) makes the wave-function-to-potential map a tautology: any Ψ defines some V, and the remaining dynamical constraint (13) is discarded. No boundary condition or normalization is imposed to single out the wave function. The advertised result that V 'emerges' from Ψ is therefore unsupported; the construction is a relabeling of the potential.
  3. [§V.A, Eqs. (33)–(37)] Model 1 takes γ=λa^6/8 and δ=λv^2a^6/2 (Eq. 34). These coefficients depend on a, so S_φ(φ)=γφ^4/4 and A_φ(φ)=exp(−δφ^2/2) are not purely field-dependent, violating the separability assumption (7)–(8) used to derive Eq. (15). Moreover, substituting (34) into (33) gives (γφ^3)^2/a^6 ~ λ^2 a^6 φ^6/64 and δ^2φ^2/a^6 ~ λ^2 v^4 a^6 φ^2/4, not the quartic potential (35). The slow-roll parameters (36)–(37) are also inconsistent with (20)–(21): e.g., (20) gives a factor 9 from (S'_φ S''_φ)^2=9γ^4φ^10, absent in (36). The model is internally inconsistent even before the continuity-equation issue is considered.
  4. [§V.B, after Eq. (48)] The assertion that V0(a) becomes constant for m=−2 and α^2=Λ/3 is algebraically false. From Eq. (17) with S_a=αa^3 and A_a=A_0 a^m, V0(a)=a^{-4}[pm/a^2+m(m−1)/a^2−9α^2a^4+Λa^2] = (−2p+6)a^{-6}−9α^2+Λa^{-2}. With m=−2 and α^2=Λ/3 this is V0(a)=(−2p+6)a^{-6}−3Λ+Λa^{-2}, which is not constant for any p. The Starobinsky plateau claimed in (48) is therefore not obtained from this wave function.
  5. [§V.C, Eqs. (63)–(68)] Model 3 asserts precise agreement with ACT DR6 constraints on n_s, r, α_s, N_eff, Σm_ν, and w (Eqs. 63–68). However, the framework developed in Sections III–IV only relates wave-function phase/amplitude derivatives to inflationary slow-roll observables; it contains no derivation of N_eff, neutrino masses, or the dark-energy equation of state. The quoted values for these quantities are not computed from (56)–(57); they are imposed to match the data. This contradicts the paper's claim that observables are determined by the quantum state and gives Model 3 no independent predictive content.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§III, Eq. (13)] The imaginary part as written double-counts derivative terms; the correct continuity equation should be a^{-p}∂_a(a^p A S'_a) − a^{-2}(2A' S'_φ + A S''_φ)=0.
  2. [§V.A] 'Substituting into the emergent potential formula (13)' should refer to Eq. (15).
  3. [§II.B] The text refers to 'the derivation of equations (7) from the WKB approximation'; Eqs. (7)–(8) are a separability ansatz, not derived.
  4. [§IV.A, Eq. (24)] dlna/dlnk≈1 is only approximate; the correction is of order ϵ, which is comparable to the slow-roll order used elsewhere.
  5. [General] The role of V0(a) is unclear: in several places it is called the background energy scale, but it is a function of a. Clarifying its relation to the physical potential is essential.

Circularity Check

4 steps flagged

Eq. (15) defines V from an arbitrarily chosen separable Ψ while the continuity equation (13) is dropped; toy models then pick S_φ,A_φ to reproduce known potentials and quote those potentials' standard observables as predictions.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Section III.A, Eq. (15) (with Eqs. (12)–(13))]
    "The separation reveals that the conventional inflaton potential V(ϕ) is not an independent phenomenological input but rather emerges as a consequence of the wave function’s structure. After straightforward algebraic manipulation and rearrangement of terms, we obtain the closed expression: V(φ) = 1/a^4 [ p/a A'_a/A_a + A''_a/A_a − (S'_a)^2 + a^2Λ ] + 1/a^6 [ (S'_φ)^2 − A''_φ/A_φ ]."

    Eq. (15) is the real part (12) formally solved for V after inserting the separable ansatz; every choice of S_φ,A_φ,S_a,A_a generates some V. The imaginary part (13), the continuity equation, is a separate constraint that a genuine WDW solution must satisfy, but it is never imposed anywhere in the paper. Thus specifying Ψ is exactly equivalent to specifying V: the claim that V 'emerges' from the wave function is a definitional relabeling, not a derivation. Moreover, Eq. (15) can define V(φ) only if its right-hand side is independent of a; this consistency condition is neither stated nor checked, and in the toy models it is actually violated by a-dependent parameters.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section V.A, Eqs. (31)–(35) and (38)–(39)]
    "Consider a wave function with the following separable form: S(a,φ)=S_a(a)+αφ+β/2 φ²+γ/4 φ⁴, A(a,φ)=A_a(a) exp(−δ/2 φ²). ... A specific parameter choice that satisfies these conditions is: α=0, β=0, γ=λa⁶/8, δ=λv²a⁶/2. With these parameters, the emergent potential becomes: V(φ)≈V_0(a)−λv²/2 φ²+λ/4 φ⁴+O(φ⁶), where V_0(a) is adjusted to match the constant term λv⁴/4."

    The parameters γ and δ are chosen, with explicit a-dependence, to reproduce the Higgs potential (30). Since V was defined by Eq. (15), this is inserting the intended answer rather than predicting it. The quoted outputs n_s≈0.965 and r≈0.012 are the standard slow-roll predictions of the quartic/Higgs potential evaluated at the chosen λ, v, φ values. Furthermore, γ=λa⁶/8 and δ=λv²a⁶/2 violate the separability ansatz (7)–(8) used to derive Eq. (15); substituting (34) into (33) gives a⁶φ⁶ and a⁶φ² terms with no φ⁴ term, so the displayed 'emergent potential' (35) does not actually follow. The alleged emergence is parameter fitting plus an algebraic inconsistency.

  3. fitted input called prediction [Section V.B, Eqs. (42)–(48) and (51)–(52)]
    "Consider a wave function with the following separable components: S(a,φ)=S_a(a)+λe^{−μφ}+κφ, A(a,φ)=A_a(a)e^{−νφ}. ... To match the Starobinsky form, we require: κ=λμ, ν=0, μ=√(2/3) 1/M_pl. With these choices, the potential becomes: V(φ)=V_0(a)+λ²μ²/a⁶ (1−e^{−μφ})²."

    Here the phase parameters are fixed by the explicit requirement 'to match the Starobinsky form', i.e., the target potential is inserted into Ψ before any computation. The subsequent n_s≈0.965 and r≈0.0035 are the standard Starobinsky-model slow-roll results evaluated at φ≈5.5M_pl, not consequences of solving the WDW equation. The background claim is also internally inconsistent: with S_a=αa³ and A_a=A_0 a^m, Eq. (17) contains a^{−6} and a^{−2} terms, so V_0(a) is not made constant by m=−2 and α²=Λ/3. The wave function therefore does not even realize the potential it is said to realize.

  4. fitted input called prediction [Section V.C, Eqs. (58)–(68)]
    "The parameters are optimized to match ACT DR6 constraints: α=0.0023M_pl^3, β=−0.0018M_pl^2, γ=0.00012M_pl, δ=0.004M_pl^{-2}. ... The resulting inflationary predictions align precisely with ACT DR6 measurements: n_s = 0.9649±0.0042, r<0.036 (95% CL), dn_s/dlnk = 0.0062±0.0052."

    The paper states in its own words that the wave-function parameters were optimized to match the dataset, and then presents the same dataset's measured central values and error bars as the model's 'predictions'. The four free parameters, plus freedom in V_0(a), suffice to reproduce Planck/ACT values; the agreement is therefore imposed by construction rather than independently derived. This is a clear instance of a fitted input being renamed a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing claim is that V(ϕ) emerges from the wave function rather than being postulated. The derivation of Eq. (15) is an algebraic inversion of the real part of the WDW equation for a hypothesized separable Ψ: for each Ψ it defines some V. Because the imaginary part (13), the continuity equation, is never imposed, arbitrary Ψ are admitted, so choosing the wave function is exactly equivalent to choosing the potential. The toy models make this reduction explicit: in Model 1, γ and δ are chosen (with a-dependence) to reproduce the Higgs potential; in Model 2, κ, ν, μ are required 'to match the Starobinsky form'; in Model 3, parameters are openly 'optimized to match ACT DR6 constraints' and then the same numbers are reported as predictions. The quoted observable values are standard slow-roll results of those known potentials at the chosen fiducial parameters, not new consequences of a quantum state. There are also internal inconsistencies — the a-dependent γ,δ violate the separability ansatz, substitution into (33) does not produce (35), and the claimed constant Starobinsky background does not follow from Eq. (17). No load-bearing step relies on a self-citation by the author, so the circularity is internal and definitional rather than citational. Because the central 'derivation' reduces by construction to a definition of V in terms of arbitrary Ψ, the score is 8.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper's 'derivation' of V from Ψ rests almost entirely on free functional input: the phase S_φ and amplitude A_φ are prescribed by hand in every toy model, the background V_0(a) is adjusted to keep the potential flat, and the continuity equation and any boundary condition are dropped. The only genuine equation is the algebraic identity (15), which rewrites the real part of the WDW equation; nothing in the framework constrains Ψ, so the ledger reduces to re-encoding the standard free choice of the inflaton potential into a free choice of wave-function phase and amplitude.

free parameters (7)
  • field-dependent phase S_φ(φ) = Model 1: α=0, β=0, γ=λa⁶/8; Model 2: λ=10⁻³M_pl³, μ=√(2/3)M_pl⁻¹, κ=λμ; Model 3: α=0.0023M_pl³, β=−0.0018M_pl², γ=0.0001
    The phase is the direct stand-in for the inflaton potential; each toy model chooses it (with parameters 'optimized' to data or to replicate a known potential), so the slow-roll predictions are set by hand.
  • amplitude A_φ(φ) = Model 1: δ=λv²a⁶/2; Model 2: ν=0; Model 3: δ=0.004M_pl⁻²
    Chosen freely; contributes to the potential and to f_NL, but is set to zero or negligible in the models that make predictions.
  • background energy scale V_0(a) = adjusted by hand ('V_0(a) is adjusted to match the constant term λv⁴/4')
    Sets the inflationary energy scale in every model; no equation determines it.
  • geometric phase/amplitude S_a(a), A_a(a) = Model 2: S_a=αa³, A_a=A_0a^m, m=−2, α²=Λ/3 (claimed)
    Chosen to make V_0(a) approximately constant; the stated condition is algebraically wrong (V_0 = (6−2p)/a⁶ − 9α² + Λ/a² is not constant).
  • factor-ordering parameter p = p=1 (default)
    Free quantization ambiguity; a default is chosen without physical justification.
  • horizon-exit field values = φ≈15M_pl (Model 1), φ≈5.5M_pl (Model 2)
    Evaluation points chosen to match target observables; no horizon-exit computation is shown.
  • toy model couplings = λ~10⁻¹³, v~10⁻³M_pl (Model 1)
    'Typical values' stated without derivation; with φ=15M_pl they give r≈0.5 by the paper's own Eq. (10), not r≈0.012.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Minisuperspace truncation: flat FRW plus single homogeneous scalar; the WDW equation (2) with factor-ordering p is the correct quantization.
    Standard quantum-cosmology idealization, adopted without discussion of inhomogeneities or backreaction (Section II).
  • ad hoc to paper Polar/Madelung decomposition Ψ=Ae^{iS} with separable S=S_a+S_φ, A=A_aA_φ (Eqs. 7–8).
    Assumed, not derived; the toy models violate it when γ, δ are made a-dependent (Section V.A).
  • domain assumption Expansion-dominated regime |∂_a S| ≫ |∂_φ S| and subleading amplitude derivatives.
    Defines the semiclassical regime; used to drop terms in Eqs. (16)–(19).
  • ad hoc to paper V_0(a) can be treated as approximately constant during inflation without a specified mechanism.
    Required to convert the a-dependent Eq. (15) into a φ-only slow-roll potential; imposed in Models 1–3, and the stated condition in Model 2 is wrong.
  • ad hoc to paper The imaginary part (continuity equation, Eq. 13) need not be enforced for the toy wave functions.
    The toy Ψ are not shown to be solutions of the full WDW system; Eq. (13) is derived and then never used.
  • domain assumption Standard slow-roll observables (Eqs. 9–10, 22) and quoted CMB constraints from Planck/BICEP/ACT.
    External input, standard to the field.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 19172 in / 35158 out tokens · 254017 ms · 2026-08-04T11:25:27.801556+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We develop a quantum-cosmological framework in which the inflationary potential emerges from the structure of the wave function of the universe rather than being postulated. Starting from the Wheeler-DeWitt equation for a flat Friedmann-Robertson-Walker minisuperspace, we express the wave function in terms of an amplitude and a phase and, in a semiclassical regime where the expansion dominates the field's evolution, separate these into purely geometric and purely field-dependent pieces. This yields a closed expression for an emergent potential that makes transparent the roles of the cosmological constant, the momenta associated with expansion and field dynamics, and quantum corrections from the amplitude. Slow-roll conditions follow from properties of the phase and amplitude, leading to wave-function-level expressions for the usual slow-roll parameters and to direct links between cosmic microwave background observables and derivatives of the phase. The approach ties inflation to the quantum state of the universe and suggests testable relationships between cosmological data and features of the wave function.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.04775 by Gerasimos Kouniatalis.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The curve tracks the departure from exact de Sitter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The vertical axis shows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

142 extracted references · 106 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    A. A. Starobinsky,A New Type of Isotropic Cosmolog- ical Models Without Singularity, Phys. Lett. B91, 99 (1980)

    1980

  2. [2]

    Kazanas,Dynamics of the Universe and Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, Astrophys

    D. Kazanas,Dynamics of the Universe and Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, Astrophys. J. Lett.241, L59-L63 (1980)

    1980

  3. [3]

    Sato,First Order Phase Transition of a Vacuum and Expansion of the Universe, Mon

    K. Sato,First Order Phase Transition of a Vacuum and Expansion of the Universe, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 195, 467 (1981)

    1981

  4. [4]

    A. H. Guth,The Inflationary Universe: A Possible So- lution to the Horizon and Flatness Problems, Phys. Rev. D23, 347 (1981)

    1981

  5. [5]

    A. D. Linde,A New Inflationary Universe Scenario: A Possible Solution of the Horizon, Flatness, Homogene- ity, Isotropy and Primordial Monopole Problems, Phys. Lett. B108, 389 (1982)

    1982

  6. [6]

    K. A. Olive,Inflation, Phys. Rept.190, 307 (1990)

    1990

  7. [7]

    D. H. Lyth and A. Riotto,Particle physics models of in- flation and the cosmological density perturbation, Phys. Rept.314, 1 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9807278]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  8. [8]

    Bartolo, E

    N. Bartolo, E. Komatsu, S. Matarrese and A. Ri- otto,Non-Gaussianity from inflation: Theory and observations, Phys. Rept.402, 103 (2004) [arXiv:astro-ph/0406398]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  9. [9]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov,Unified cosmic his- tory in modified gravity: from F(R) theory to Lorentz non-invariant models, Phys. Rept.505, 59-144 (2011) [arXiv:1011.0544]. 11

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  10. [10]

    Martin, C

    J. Martin, C. Ringeval and V. Vennin,Encyclopae- dia Inflationaris, Phys. Dark Univ.5-6, 75-235 (2014) [arXiv:1303.3787]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  11. [11]

    P. A. R. Adeet al.[BICEP and Keck],Improved Constraints on Primordial Gravitational Waves us- ing Planck, WMAP, and BICEP/Keck Observations through the 2018 Observing Season, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 151301 (2021) [arXiv:2110.00483]

    arXiv 2018

  12. [12]

    Akramiet al.[Planck],Planck 2018 results

    Y. Akramiet al.[Planck],Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation, Astron. Astrophys.641, A10 (2020) [arXiv:1807.06211]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  13. [13]

    Faraoni,Nonminimal coupling of the scalar field and inflation, Phys

    V. Faraoni,Nonminimal coupling of the scalar field and inflation, Phys. Rev. D53, 6813-6821 (1996) [arXiv:astro-ph/9602111]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  14. [14]

    Bastero-Gil, S

    M. Bastero-Gil, S. F. King and Q. Shafi,Su- persymmetric Hybrid Inflation with Non-Minimal Kahler potential, Phys. Lett. B651, 345-351 (2007) [arXiv:hep-ph/0604198]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  15. [15]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov and P. V. Tretyakov,From inflation to dark energy in the non-minimal modified gravity, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.172, 81-89 (2008) [arXiv:0710.5232]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  16. [16]

    Bamba and S

    K. Bamba and S. D. Odintsov,Inflation and late-time cosmic acceleration in non-minimal Maxwell-F(R) grav- ity and the generation of large-scale magnetic fields, JCAP04, 024 (2008) [arXiv:0801.0954]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  17. [17]

    M. B. Einhorn and D. R. T. Jones,Inflation with Non- minimal Gravitational Couplings in Supergravity, JHEP 03, 026 (2010) [arXiv:0912.2718]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  18. [18]

    Bauer and D

    F. Bauer and D. A. Demir,Inflation with Non-Minimal Coupling: Metric versus Palatini Formulations, Phys. Lett. B665, 222-226 (2008) [arXiv:0803.2664]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  19. [19]

    Germani and A

    C. Germani and A. Kehagias,New Model of Infla- tion with Non-minimal Derivative Coupling of Standard Model Higgs Boson to Gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 011302 (2010) [arXiv:1003.2635]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  20. [20]

    C. J. Feng, X. Z. Li and E. N. Saridakis,Preventing eter- nality in phantom inflation, Phys. Rev. D82, 023526 (2010) [arXiv:1004.1874]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  21. [21]

    M. P. Hertzberg,On Inflation with Non-minimal Cou- pling, JHEP11, 023 (2010) [arXiv:1002.2995]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  22. [22]

    M. W. Hossain, R. Myrzakulov, M. Sami and E. N. Sari- dakis,Variable gravity: A suitable framework for quintessential inflation, Phys. Rev. D90, 023512 (2014) [arXiv:1402.6661]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  23. [23]

    M. W. Hossain, R. Myrzakulov, M. Sami and E. N. Sari- dakis,Class of quintessential inflation models with pa- rameter space consistent with BICEP2, Phys. Rev. D 89, 123513 (2014) [arXiv:1404.1445]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  24. [24]

    M. W. Hossain, R. Myrzakulov, M. Sami and E. N. Sari- dakis,Evading Lyth bound in models of quintessen- tial inflation, Phys. Lett. B737, 191-195 (2014) [arXiv:1405.7491]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  25. [25]

    C. Q. Geng, M. W. Hossain, R. Myrzakulov, M. Sami and E. N. Saridakis,Quintessential inflation with canonical and noncanonical scalar fields and Planck 2015 results, Phys. Rev. D92, 023522 (2015) [arXiv:1502.03597]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  26. [26]

    S. Lola, A. Lymperis and E. N. Saridakis,Inflation with non-canonical scalar fields revisited, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 719 (2021) [arXiv:2005.14069]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  27. [27]

    Braglia, D

    M. Braglia, D. K. Hazra, L. Sriramkumar, and F. Finelli,Generating primordial features at large scales in two field models of inflation, JCAP08, 025 (2020) [arXiv:2004.00672]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  28. [28]

    Papanikolaou, A

    T. Papanikolaou, A. Lymperis, S. Lola and E. N. Sari- dakis,Primordial black holes and gravitational waves from non-canonical inflation, JCAP03, 003 (2023) [arXiv:2211.14900]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  29. [29]

    Sohail, S

    Sk. Sohail, S. Alam, S. Akthar, and Md. W. Hossain, Quintessential early dark energy, Phys. Dark. Univ.48, 101948 (2025) [arXiv:2408.03229]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Tsujikawa,The effective field theory of inflation/dark energy and the Horndeski theory, Lect

    S. Tsujikawa,The effective field theory of inflation/dark energy and the Horndeski theory, Lect. Notes Phys.892, 97-136 (2015) [arXiv:1404.2684]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  31. [31]

    Germani, N

    C. Germani, N. Kudryashova and Y. Watanabe,On post-inflation validity of perturbation theory in Horn- deski scalar-tensor models, JCAP08, 015 (2016) [arXiv:1512.06344]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  32. [32]

    Beltran Jimenez, L

    J. Beltran Jimenez, L. Heisenberg, R. Kase, R. Namba and S. Tsujikawa,Instabilities in Horndeski Yang- Mills inflation, Phys. Rev. D95, 063533 (2017) [arXiv:1702.01193]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  33. [33]

    Sebastiani, S

    L. Sebastiani, S. Myrzakul and R. Myrzakulov,Recon- struction of k-essence inflation in Horndeski gravity, Eur. Phys. J. Plus132, 433 (2017) [arXiv:1702.00064]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  34. [34]

    V. K. Oikonomou and F. P. Fronimos,Reviving non-minimal Horndeski-like theories after GW170817: kinetic coupling corrected Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet in- flation, Class. Quant. Grav.38, 035013 (2021) [arXiv:2006.05512]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    P. Chen, S. Koh and G. Tumurtushaa,Primordial black holes and induced gravitational waves from inflation in the Horndeski theory of gravity, [arXiv:2107.08638]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  36. [36]

    Kobayashi, M

    T. Kobayashi, M. Yamaguchi and J. Yokoyama,G- inflation: Inflation driven by the Galileon field, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 231302 (2010) [arXiv:1008.0603]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  37. [37]

    Burrage, C

    C. Burrage, C. de Rham, D. Seery and A. J. Tol- ley,Galileon inflation, JCAP01, 014 (2011) [arXiv:1009.2497]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  38. [38]

    Renaux-Petel,Orthogonal non-Gaussianities from Dirac-Born-Infeld Galileon inflation, Class

    S. Renaux-Petel,Orthogonal non-Gaussianities from Dirac-Born-Infeld Galileon inflation, Class. Quant. Grav.28, 182001 (2011) [arXiv:1105.6366]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  39. [39]

    Renaux-Petel, S

    S. Renaux-Petel, S. Mizuno and K. Koyama,Pri- mordial fluctuations and non-Gaussianities from mul- tifield DBI Galileon inflation, JCAP11, 042 (2011) [arXiv:1108.0305]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  40. [40]

    Choudhury and S

    S. Choudhury and S. Pal,Primordial non-Gaussian fea- tures from DBI Galileon inflation, Eur. Phys. J. C75, 241 (2015) [arXiv:1210.4478]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  41. [41]

    Ohashi and S

    J. Ohashi and S. Tsujikawa,Potential-driven Galileon inflation, JCAP10, 035 (2012) [arXiv:1207.4879]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  42. [42]

    Qiu and Y

    T. Qiu and Y. T. Wang,G-Bounce Inflation: Towards Nonsingular Inflation Cosmology with Galileon Field, JHEP04, 130 (2015) [arXiv:1501.03568]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  43. [43]

    Choudhury, S

    S. Choudhury, S. Panda and M. Sami,Galileon inflation evades the no-go for PBH formation in the single-field framework, JCAP08, 078 (2023) [arXiv:2304.04065]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  44. [44]

    Choudhury, A

    S. Choudhury, A. Karde, S. Panda and M. Sami, Scalar induced gravity waves from ultra slow-roll galileon inflation, Nucl. Phys. B1007, 116678 (2024) [arXiv:2308.09273]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    E. N. Saridakiset al.[CANTATA],Modified Gravity and Cosmology: An Update by the CANTATA Network, [arXiv:2105.12582]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  46. [46]

    J. D. Barrow and S. Cotsakis,Inflation and the Confor- mal Structure of Higher Order Gravity Theories, Phys. Lett. B214, 515-518 (1988). 12

    1988

  47. [47]

    Garcia-Bellido and D

    J. Garcia-Bellido and D. Wands,Constraints from in- flation on scalar - tensor gravity theories, Phys. Rev. D 52, 6739-6749 (1995) [arXiv:gr-qc/9506050]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  48. [48]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov,Modified gravity with nega- tive and positive powers of the curvature: Unification of the inflation and of the cosmic acceleration, Phys. Rev. D68, 123512 (2003) [arXiv:hep-th/0307288]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  49. [49]

    B. M. Carter and I. P. Neupane,Towards inflation and dark energy cosmologies from modified Gauss-Bonnet theory, JCAP06, 004 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0512262]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  50. [50]

    Ferraro and F

    R. Ferraro and F. Fiorini,Modified teleparallel grav- ity: Inflation without inflaton, Phys. Rev. D75, 084031 (2007) [arXiv:gr-qc/0610067]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  51. [51]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov,Unifying inflation with LambdaCDM epoch in modified f(R) gravity consistent with Solar System tests, Phys. Lett. B657, 238-245 (2007) [arXiv:0707.1941]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  52. [52]

    Mukohyama,Scale-invariant cosmological perturba- tions from Horava-Lifshitz gravity without inflation, JCAP06, 001 (2009) [arXiv:0904.2190]

    S. Mukohyama,Scale-invariant cosmological perturba- tions from Horava-Lifshitz gravity without inflation, JCAP06, 001 (2009) [arXiv:0904.2190]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  53. [53]

    Nozari and B

    K. Nozari and B. Fazlpour,Non-Minimal Warm Infla- tion and Perturbations on the Warped DGP Brane with Modified Induced Gravity, Gen. Rel. Grav.43, 207-234 (2011) [arXiv:0906.5047]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  54. [54]

    Elizalde, S

    E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov and D. Saez- Gomez,Unifying inflation with dark energy in modified F(R) Horava-Lifshitz gravity, Eur. Phys. J. C70, 351- 361 (2010) [arXiv:1006.3387]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  55. [55]

    Y. F. Cai and E. N. Saridakis,Inflation in En- tropic Cosmology: Primordial Perturbations and non- Gaussianities, Phys. Lett. B697, 280-287 (2011) [arXiv:1011.1245]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  56. [56]

    Briscese, A

    F. Briscese, A. Marcian` o, L. Modesto and E. N. Sari- dakis,Inflation in (Super-)renormalizable Gravity, Phys. Rev. D87, 083507 (2013) [arXiv:1212.3611]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  57. [57]

    Sebastiani, G

    L. Sebastiani, G. Cognola, R. Myrzakulov, S. D. Odintsov and S. Zerbini,Nearly Starobinsky inflation from modified gravity, Phys. Rev. D89, 023518 (2014) [arXiv:1311.0744]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  58. [58]

    Bamba, R

    K. Bamba, R. Myrzakulov, S. D. Odintsov and L. Sebas- tiani,Trace-anomaly driven inflation in modified gravity and the BICEP2 result, Phys. Rev. D90, 043505 (2014) [arXiv:1403.6649]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  59. [59]

    Bamba, G

    K. Bamba, G. Cognola, S. D. Odintsov and S. Zerbini, One-loop modified gravity in a de Sitter universe, quantum-corrected inflation, and its confrontation with the Planck result, Phys. Rev. D90, 023525 (2014) [arXiv:1404.4311]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  60. [60]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov,MimeticF(R)gravity: inflation, dark energy and bounce, [arXiv:1408.3561]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  61. [61]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou,Quan- titative analysis of singular inflation with scalar-tensor and modified gravity, Phys. Rev. D91, 084059 (2015) [arXiv:1502.07005]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  62. [62]

    De Laurentis, M

    M. De Laurentis, M. Paolella and S. Capozziello,Cos- mological inflation inF(R,G)gravity, Phys. Rev. D91, 083531 (2015) [arXiv:1503.04659]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  63. [63]

    C. Q. Geng, C. C. Lee, M. Sami, E. N. Saridakis and A. A. Starobinsky,Observational constraints on suc- cessful model of quintessential Inflation, JCAP06, 011 (2017) [arXiv:1705.01329]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  64. [64]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou,Modi- fied Gravity Theories on a Nutshell: Inflation, Bounce and Late-time Evolution, Phys. Rept.692, 1-104 (2017) [arXiv:1705.11098]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  65. [65]

    A. Awad, W. El Hanafy, G. G. L. Nashed, S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou,Constant-roll Inflation inf(T)Teleparallel Gravity, JCAP07, 026 (2018) [arXiv:1710.00682]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  66. [66]

    Chakraborty, T

    S. Chakraborty, T. Paul and S. SenGupta,Inflation driven by Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity, Phys. Rev. D 98, 083539 (2018) [arXiv:1804.03004]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  67. [67]

    T. Qiu, K. Tian and S. Bu,Perturbations of bounce inflation scenario fromf(T)modified gravity revisited, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 261 (2019) [arXiv:1810.04436]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  68. [68]

    Shimada, K

    K. Shimada, K. Aoki and K. i. Maeda,Metric-affine Gravity and Inflation, Phys. Rev. D99, 104020 (2019) [arXiv:1812.03420]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  69. [69]

    Benisty, E

    D. Benisty, E. I. Guendelman, E. N. Saridakis, H. Stoecker, J. Struckmeier and D. Vasak,Inflation from fermions with curvature-dependent mass, Phys. Rev. D100, 043523 (2019) [arXiv:1905.03731]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  70. [70]

    Gamonal,Slow-roll inflation inf(R, T)gravity and a modified Starobinsky-like inflationary model, Phys

    M. Gamonal,Slow-roll inflation inf(R, T)gravity and a modified Starobinsky-like inflationary model, Phys. Dark Univ.31, 100768 (2021) [arXiv:2010.03861]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  71. [71]

    R. G. Cai, C. Fu and W. W. Yu,Parity violation in stochastic gravitational wave background from inflation in Nieh-Yan modified teleparallel gravity, Phys. Rev. D 105, 103520 (2022) [arXiv:2112.04794]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  72. [72]

    Papanikolaou, C

    T. Papanikolaou, C. Tzerefos, S. Basilakos and E. N. Saridakis,Scalar induced gravitational waves from primordial black hole Poisson fluctuations in f(R) grav- ity, JCAP10, 013 (2022) [arXiv:2112.15059]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  73. [73]

    Shiravand, S

    M. Shiravand, S. Fakhry and M. Farhoudi,Cosmological inflation in f(Q,T) gravity, Phys. Dark Univ.37, 101106 (2022) [arXiv:2204.00906]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  74. [74]

    Panda, A

    S. Panda, A. Rana and R. Thakur,Constant-roll in- flation in modifiedf(R, ϕ)gravity model using Pala- tini formalism, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 297 (2023) [arXiv:2212.00472]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  75. [75]

    Basilakos, D

    S. Basilakos, D. V. Nanopoulos, T. Papanikolaou, E. N. Saridakis and C. Tzerefos,Gravitational wave signatures of no-scale supergravity in NANOGrav and beyond, Phys. Lett. B850, 138507 (2024) [arXiv:2307.08601]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  76. [76]

    Tzerefos, T

    C. Tzerefos, T. Papanikolaou, E. N. Saridakis and S. Basilakos,Scalar induced gravitational waves in mod- ified teleparallel gravity theories, Phys. Rev. D107, 124019 (2023) [arXiv:2303.16695]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  77. [77]

    Papanikolaou, C

    T. Papanikolaou, C. Tzerefos, S. Capozziello and G. Lambiase,Gravitational-wave signatures of gravito- electromagnetic couplings, JCAP01, 051 (2025) [arXiv:2408.17259]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  78. [78]

    Kallosh and A

    R. Kallosh and A. Linde,Universality Class in Confor- mal Inflation, JCAP07, 002 (2013) [arXiv:1306.5220]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  79. [79]

    Kallosh, A

    R. Kallosh, A. Linde and D. Roest,Superconfor- mal Inflationaryα-Attractors, JHEP11, 198 (2013) [arXiv:1311.0472]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  80. [80]

    Kallosh, A

    R. Kallosh, A. Linde and D. Roest,Universal Attractor for Inflation at Strong Coupling, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 011303 (2014) [arXiv:1310.3950]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

Showing first 80 references.